APPENDIX A. Notice of Intent/Notice of Preparation/Initial Study (NOI/NOP/IS)

Transcription

1 APPENDIX A Notice of Intent/Notice of Preparation/Initial Study (NOI/NOP/IS)

2

3 SPECIAL PUBLIC NOTICE PUBLIC SCOPING MEETING for the Pacific Energy Crude Oil Marine Terminal and Pipelines Project on Pier 400 (Preparation of a Draft Supplemental Environmental Statement/Supplemental Environmental Report) LOS ANGELES DISTRICT Meeting Date: July 8th, 2004 SCOPING MEETING The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE or Corps) Los Angeles District and the Los Angeles Harbor Department (LAHD or Port) will jointly conduct a public scoping meeting for the proposed Port of Los Angeles Pacific Energy Crude Oil Marine Terminal and Pipelines Project Draft Supplemental SEIS/SEIR on July 8 th, 2004 at 6:30 p.m., to receive public comment and assess public concerns regarding the appropriate scope and preparation of the Draft SEIS/SEIR. Participation in the public meeting by federal, state and local agencies and other interested organizations and persons are encouraged. This meeting is to be conducted in English and Spanish. Members of the public who wish to communicate and listen entirely in Spanish are encouraged to attend this meeting. The meeting will be held at: Banning's Landing Community Center 100 E. Water Street Wilmington, CA Please see the attached map for the location of public scoping meeting. This scoping process is intended to provide the Corps and the Port with information the public feels is necessary to establish the appropriate scope for preparing the environmental analysis in the proposed future SEIS/SEIR. The Corps and the Port are not yet requesting public input on the merits or detriments of the overall proposal, nor advice on whether or not to approve or deny the proposal. There will be future opportunity to provide these types of comments during the permit review process. During the public scoping hearing, anyone wishing to make a statement will be allocated a certain amount of time to provide information on the proposed project. The amount of time each person is allowed will be directly dependent on the number of people who sign up to speak at the public hearing. We would like to encourage

4 interest groups to designate an official spokesperson to present the group s views. We plan to allocate a larger amount of time to official representatives of such groups. Groups wishing to designate an official representative must notify the Corps in writing prior to, but not later than, Friday, July 2nd, The determination of this extended speaking time will be based on the number of responses received by the Corps. This rule will be strictly enforced at the discretion of the Corps hearing officer. Written comments to the Corps and Port will be received until July 16 th, Written comments should be addressed to the address below: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District Regulatory Branch and the Los Angeles Harbor Department c/o Joshua Burnam and Dr. Ralph G. Appy ATTN: CESPL-CO-R JLB P.O. Box Los Angeles, California Parties interested in being added to the Corps electronic mail notification list for the Port of Los Angeles can register at: This list will be used in the future to notify the public about scheduled hearings and availability of future public notices. Contacts: Army Corps of Engineers Project Manager - Joshua L. Burnam - (213) ; Port of Los Angeles Contact - Dr. Ralph Appy - (310)

5 BANNINGS LANDING COMMUNITY CENTER 100 E. Water Street Wilmington, CA Pacific Energy Project Site Pacific Energy Project Site N Scale 0 Scoping Meeting Location Mile 1.0

6 This page intentionally left blank.

7 NOTICE OF INTENT/NOTICE OF PREPARATION Interested parties are hereby notified that a preliminary application has been received for a Department of the Army permit for the activity described herein. The Corps is considering the Port s application for a Department of the Army permit under the Clean Water Act Section 404 and River and Harbor Act Section 10 to construct docking facilities (breasting dolphins) and petroleum product loading apparatus associated with the proposed project. Interested parties are invited to provide their views on the scope of the Draft Supplemental SEIS/SEIR, which will become a part of the record and will be considered in the development of the SEIS/SEIR. This SEIS/SEIR will be used as part of a permit decision pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of March 3, 1899 (33 U.S.C. 403) and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1344). The Corps, in conjunction with the Port, is examining the feasibility of constructing a liquid bulk terminal to receive and transfer of crude oil and intermediate petroleum products at Pier 400 in the Port of Los Angeles. The Corps and the Port independently determined under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), respectively, that there are potential significant environmental impacts associated with the proposed action, and an Environmental Statement (EIS) and Environmental Report (EIR) are required. The primary Federal concerns are related to the construction of structures in or affecting navigable waters of the United States, the discharging of materials within waters of the United States, and potential significant impacts on the human environment from such activities. Therefore, in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Corps is requiring the preparation of an EIS prior to reaching a permit decision. The Corps may ultimately make a determination to permit or deny the above project, or permit modified versions of the above project. The Corps has prepared and published a Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an EIS for the proposed project in the Federal Register. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Port will serve as Lead Agency for the preparation of an EIR for its consideration of development approvals within its jurisdiction. The Port prepared, as part of the Notice of Preparation (NOP), an Environmental Checklist for the EIR determination, in accordance with current City of Los Angeles Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of the 1970, (Article I); the State CEQA Guideline, (Title 14, California Code of Regulations); and the California Public Resources Code, (Section 21000, et seq.). The Environmental Checklist is attached to this Public Notice for public review and comment. Public comments should be submitted by July 16 th, The Corps and the Port have agreed to jointly prepare a Draft SEIS/SEIR in order to optimize efficiency and avoid duplication. The Draft SEIS/SEIR is intended to be sufficient in scope to address both the federal and the state and local requirements and environmental issues concerning the proposed activities and permit approvals. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background: USACE and LAHD previously prepared and certified the Deep Draft Navigation Improvements, Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbors, San Pedro Bay, California Final SEIS/SEIR (Deep Draft SEIS/SEIR) that in part analyzed the impacts of creation of Pier 400 from dredge material and the subsequent construction and operation of a new liquid bulk terminal on the new Pier 400 land (USACE and LAHD, 1992). LAHD approved the Deep Draft EIS/EIR in its action of November 18, 1992; and the USACE issued a Record of Decision (ROD) on January 21, The SEIS/SEIR being prepared for this specific action is a supplement to 1

8 the Deep Draft EIS/EIR. Project Purpose and Need: The primary purpose of the proposed project is to provide a deep-water berth that is able to efficiently accommodate the larger 375,000 dead-weight-tons (DWT) deep-draft vessels that are becoming a more common part of the world s oil transport fleet. In line with this primary purpose is the goal of providing a modern terminal to provide efficient, high-volume transfer of crude oil and intermediate petroleum products through a drain-dry pumping, pipeline, and storage system that would maximize the overall crudehandling efficiency and capacity of the terminal. This includes completing the related transfer and storage facilities needed to accommodate the forecasted and planned increases in volume of crude oil and intermediate petroleum products shipped through the Port. In order to meet this purpose and need, the following objectives need to be accomplished: Construct and operate a crude oil terminal that maximizes the use of existing waterways and available shoreline; Construct sufficient berthing and infrastructure capacity to accommodate foreseeable crude oil and related petroleum product volumes entering the Port; and Provide needed terminal accessory buildings and structures to support the anticipated product handling requirements. Proposed Action: Major project elements to be covered in the Draft SEIS/SEIR include: construction and operation of a new marine terminal, storage terminals, and pipelines. The landside developments will include (1) development and construction of the liquid bulk marine terminal facilities on Pier 400, (2) construction of product storage terminals on Terminal Island and/or other suitable sites, (3) construction of a 42-inch pipeline to connect the Marine Terminal to the Storage Terminals, (4) construction of two 36-inch pipelines from the Storage Terminals to link with an existing 36-inch pipeline running between the ExxonMobil Southwest Terminal on Terminal Island and the Ultramar Liquid Bulk Terminal on Mormon Island (one of the 36-inch pipelines would deliver product to the Exxon/Mobil Southwest Terminal and the other would deliver product to the Ultramar Liquid Bulk Terminal), and (5) construction of a 24-inch pipeline from the Ultramar Terminal to the Ultramar/Valero Refinery located north of the Terminal Island Freeway and south of Anaheim Street. The project site locations and regional vicinity of the proposed project are shown in Figure 1. The layout of the proposed crude oil marine terminal on Pier 400 is shown in Figure 2. Project Site: The proposed marine terminal portion of this project would be located on the western side (Face C) and southern side (Face D) of Pier 400 in the Port s Planning Area 9 (see Figures 3 and 4). The currently identified new storage terminal sites would be located on Terminal Island and would also be in the Port s Planning Area 9. The proposed terminal would require approximately 4 million barrels of storage capacity. Five sites within the port (described below) with a total storage capacity of approximately 3.5 million barrels have already been identified. The total storage capacity will be limited to 3.5 million barrels pending identification of other sites in or outside the Port that could accommodate the project, in its entirety or in part, or accommodate the remaining needed capacity (approximately 500,000 barrels). Pacific Energy s anchor customer plans to use 1.0 million barrels of capacity and Pacific Energy would use the other 3.0 million barrels to serve other customers. The currently identified storage terminal sites are described in the following paragraphs and are shown on Figure 5. Reeves Avenue/Navy Way Site. The Reeves Avenue/Navy Way Site is a acre (4.4-hectare) site that can accommodate four (4) 250,000-barrel storage tanks plus related manifolds and pumping equipment (see Figure 5). The proposed 42-inch-diameter offloading pipeline from the Pier 400 Marine Terminal dock would terminate at this site. The property that would be utilized by Pacific Energy is under the control of the LAHD 2

9 and excludes the nearby strip of land controlled by the U.S. Navy. Site 6a. This 9.72-acre (3.9-hectare) site, North of Seaside Avenue, is narrow and long and would not provide sufficient width for the construction of 250,000-barrel storage tanks (see Figure 5). However, Pacific Energy could fit 140,000-barrel tanks into this space and would build four (4) tanks for a total capacity of 560,000 barrels. Naval Reserve Center Site. The Naval Reserve Center Site is located east of Terminal Way between Seaside Avenue and Reeves Avenue. Pacific Energy could build three (3) 250,000-barrel tanks on the property (see Figure 5). Pacific Energy assumes that the easterly half of this property, which is approximately 11 acres (4.5 hectares), could be used for the proposed project since this section of the property is either vacant or is being used for operations which could be easily located elsewhere. Pacific Energy s design maintains the existing entrance to the property, the large parking area on the westerly half, and the main Navy Reserve building in the Northwest corner. LAHD has begun consultation with the U.S. Navy concerning use of this site. Seaside Avenue/Terminal Way Site. The Seaside Avenue/Terminal Way Site is a acre (5.0-hectare) triangular shaped piece of property that is split in half by an active rail system (see Figure 5). However, relocation of the existing rail to the inside edge of the property would allow Pacific Energy to build three (3) 250,000-barrel tanks at this location. Pier 400 Site. Pacific Energy could build one (1) 500,000-barrel storage tank on the Face D side of Pier 400 (see Figure 4). This tank would be built in conjunction with other offloading equipment required for the new marine terminal such as pumps, manifolds, electrical buildings, and a small 50,000-barrel surge tank to be used for pumping operations. Use of this site will require consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game regarding the nearby least tern nesting site on Pier 400. Proposed Action Construction: Construction would consist of three primary activities, i.e., marine terminal construction, storage terminal (tank farm) construction, and pipeline construction. Marine Terminal Construction. The principal elements of the proposed marine terminal project are described below. 1. Construct and operate the following marine structures: a) Construct approximately 6000 square feet (SF) of unloading platform (ULP) with dock house and placement of 8 steel and/or concrete piles in waters of the U.S. b) Construct approximately 8000 SF of breasting dolphins (BD), and placement of approximately 16 steel and/or concrete piles in waters of the U.S. c) Construct approximately 8000 SF of north and south trestles (NST) with roadway, and pipeway, and placement of approximately 20 steel and/or concrete piles in waters of the U.S. d) Construct approximately 270-foot wharf (23,500 SF) along the existing rock dike and adjoining the NST, and placement of approximately 70 concrete piles in waters of the U.S. e) Construct approximately 4500 SF of walkway, and placement of approximately 8 steel and/or concrete piles in waters of the U.S. f) Construct approximately 1500 SF of floating dock and gangway and placement of approximately 8 concrete piles in waters of the U.S. g) Construct approximately 6 power capstans (shore mooring points) with approximately 48 concrete piles in waters of the U.S. h) Construct control building. i) Construct fire protection system. 3

10 j) Construct spill containment boom. 2. Construct and develop 10 acres of backland area for roadway, pipelines, buildings and landscaping. Offloading Berth. The proposed liquid bulk-offloading berth would be designed to accommodate marine crude oil tankers up to 375,000 DWT, with a length overall (LOA) of 1,200 ft (366 m) and 2.8 million barrel capacity. The maximum allowable vessel draught at the proposed Pier 400 Berth is 79.5 ft (24.2 m). The offloading arms would be designed to deliver crude oil from ships to the proposed storage terminals at rates that average 52,500 gallons per minute (75,000 barrels per hour [BPH]). Initially, the marine terminal would deliver an average of about 150,000 barrels per day from vessels to the proposed storage terminals. Storage Terminal (Tank Farm) Construction. Storage terminals with 3.5 million barrels of capacity would be constructed at the sites previously described. An additional site with up to 500,000 barrels of capacity has yet to be identified. This remaining unidentified site may be located on or off of Port property. The proposed tanks would be designed for crude oil storage and service. The total number of tanks will depend on the final selection of tank sites. It is anticipated that the tanks would be external floating roof, drain dry, welded steel crude oil storage tanks, designed and constructed in accordance with the API Standard 650, Welded Steel Tanks for Oil Storage. Although the final dimensions of the tanks would be determined during detailed design, the current proposed dimensions for a 500,000-barrel tank are nominally 285-ft (86.9 m) diameter by 48- ft (14.6 m) tall. Principal components of the storage terminals to be constructed would be: 1) External floating roof, drain dry, welded steel crude oil storage tanks. 2) Containment structures and dikes including primary containment structures that encircle all tanks. 3) Control, switchgear, and storage buildings. 4) Electrical substation and electrical power system. 5) Fire suppression and emergency response systems. Pipeline Construction. Pipelines to be constructed would include a 42-inch pipeline from the Pier 400 Marine Terminal to the Storage Terminals, two 36-inch pipelines from the Storage Terminals to connect to the existing Kinder Morgan Energy Partners (KMEP) 36-inch pipeline at a point on Terminal Island, between ExxonMobil Southwest Terminal, and the Ultramar Liquid Bulk Terminal on Mormon Island. A new 24-inch pipeline would be constructed from the Ultramar Liquid Bulk Terminal on Mormon Island, to the Ultramar/Valero Refinery. Proposed Action Operation: Activities and system elements that would be associated with the operation of the Marine Terminal, the Storage Terminals, and the Pipelines are listed below. 1) Site access and security. 2) Process control and safety systems. 3) Vapor and leak monitoring/detection. 4) Spill detection and containment. 5) Storm water drainage and treatment system. 6) Wastes/waste handling. 7) Chemical storage (lubricating oil, hydraulic fluid, water based solvents, fire fighting foam surfactant, oil drag reducing agents, corrosion inhibitors, etc.). 4

11 8) Lighting. 9) Product transfer operations. 10) Fire detection and suppression. 11) Cathodic protection system. Issues: There are several potential environmental issues that will be addressed in the SEIS/SEIR. Additional issues may be identified during the scoping process. Issues initially identified as potentially significant include: 1). s to air quality from new air emissions; 2). Potential for cultural impacts due to pipeline disturbance of historical resources; 3). Geological issues, including risks from known seismic activity and the presence of expansive soils; 4). Potential for hazardous materials impacts through transport and use of crude oil products and risk of upset or accident; 5). s to hydrology, including known risks due to seiches and tsunamis; 6). Potential impacts on public health and safety; 7). Potential impacts on aesthetics due to light and glare; 8). Potential impacts on biological resources, in particular impact to the least tern nesting area on Pier 400; 9). Potential noise impacts during both construction and operation phases; 10). s to marine vessel traffic, including marine navigation; and 11). Cumulative impacts. Alternatives: Alternatives initially being considered for the proposed project include the following: 1). Proposed Action as described above (does not require dredging activity). 2). Expansion of other crude oil terminals within the POLA. 3). Development of a new landfill and/or terminal within the POLA. 4). Expansion or construction of a crude oil terminal outside of the POLA. 5). Lightering of crude from deep-water locations in the Inner or Outer Harbor. 6). Development of a deepwater offshore mooring site with connection to onshore storage facilities via underwater pipeline. 7). Combination marine terminal/lightering operation. 8). Near-shore dredging with wharf setback. 9). No Project (no physical changes). 10). Relocation of existing liquid bulk facilities with wharf construction. 11). No Federal Action (no structures or dredging in waters of the U.S.). AVAILABILITY OF THE DRAFT SEIS/SEIR The joint lead agencies expect the Draft SEIS/SEIR to be made available to the public in early A public hearing will be held during when the Draft is available. 5

12 Willow Street 110 WILMINGTON Pacific Coast Highway Anaheim Street CITY OF CARSON CITY OF LOS ANGELES 1 Alameda St. Dominguez Channel Dominguez Channel 103 Anaheim Street Ultramar/Valero Refinery 710 Los Angeles River Proposed 24" Pipeline Harry S. Bridges Blvd. 110 SAN PEDRO Ultramar Liquid Bulk Terminal 47 Vincent Thomas Bridge Exxon/Mobil Southwest Terminal Los Angeles Main Channel Seaside Ave. Existing 36" Pipeline 3 Proposed 36" Pipelines Terminal Island Cerritos Channel Ocean Blvd. Gerald Desmond Bridge Storage Tank Farm Locations (see legend) West Basin Proposed 42" Pipeline East Basin Long Beach Outer Harbor Shorel Pier D400 San Pedro Bay Pier 400 Proposed Liquid Bulk Terminal (Face C) Pier 400 Los Angeles Harbor Proposed Liquid Bulk Terminal (Face D) CITY OF LONG BEACH CITY OF LOS ANGELES Scale Mile N STORAGE TANK FARM LOCATIONS 1 Reeves Ave./ Navy Way Site Naval Reserve Site Site 6A Seaside Ave./ Terminal Way Site Figure 1. Project Site Locations and Vicinity

13 42" PIPELINE TO STORAGE TERMINAL MAERSK SEALAND CONTAINER TERMINAL PIER 400 PROPOSED LIQUID BULK TERMINAL PIER 400 PROPOSED LIQUID BULK TERMINAL N Source: Pacific Energy Group LLC 2003; SPEC Services 2003 OPTION - PIER 400 PROPOSED ADDITIONAL TANKAGE (550,000 BBL.) Scale Feet Figure 2. Layout of the Proposed Crude Oil Marine Terminal on Pier 400

14 N Source: Pacific Energy Group LLC 2003; SPEC Services Scale Feet Figure 3. Face C of the Proposed Crude Oil Marine Terminal on Pier 400

15 42" PIPELINE TO STORAGE TERMINAL Source: Pacific Energy Group LLC 2003; SPEC Services Scale Feet N Figure 4. Face D of the Proposed Crude Oil Marine Terminal on Pier 400

16 6A SITE PROPOSED TANKAGE (560,000 BBL.) NAVAL RESERVE SITE PROPOSED TANKAGE (750,000 BBL.) 150' (TYP) OCEAN BLVD. SEASIDE AVE. 202' (TYP) 202' (TYP) SEASIDE AVE./TERMINAL WAY SITE PROPOSED TANKAGE (750,000 BBL.) (SEE NOTE 1) REEVES AVE. NAVY WAY 202' (TYP) TERMINAL WAY REEVES AVE./NAVY WAY SITE PROPOSED TANKAGE (1,000,000 BBL.) Scale N Source: Pacific Energy Group LLC 2003; SPEC Services Feet Figure 5. Proposed Storage Terminal Locations and Layouts

17

18 This page intentionally left blank.

19 Environmental Checklist and Analysis 1 Project Title: Storage Terminals, and Pipelines Project Environmental Statement/Environmental Report ADP No Lead Agency Name and Address: 3 Contact Person and Phone Number: Los Angeles Harbor Department Environmental Management Division 425 S. Palos Verdes Street Post Office Box 151 San Pedro, CA Dr. Ralph G. Appy Director of Environmental Management c/o Kenneth Ragland (310) Project Location: Port of Los Angeles: Pier 400, Terminal Island, Mormon Island, and within the City of Los Angeles. Figure 1 in the NOI/NOP shows the locations of the proposed marine terminal, storage terminals, and pipelines. 5 Project Sponsor s Name and Address: Pacific Energy Group LLC 5900 Cherry Avenue Long Beach, CA General Plan Designation: Port of Los Angeles 7 Zoning: [Q] M3 8 Description of Project: The Storage Terminals, and Pipelines Project includes construction of a new deepwater liquid bulk marine terminal on Pier 400, pipelines necessary to transfer crude oil and intermediate petroleum products, and a new storage terminals on Terminal Island (see NOI/NOP). 9 Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: 10 Other Public Agencies whose Approval Is Required Container terminals, liquid bulk marine terminals, and tank farms. National Marine Fisheries Service U.S. Army Corp of Engineers U.S. Coast Guard U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service California Coastal Commission California Department of Fish and Game California Department of Transportation California Environmental Protection Agency California State Lands Commission Department of Toxic Substances Control Board Regional Water Quality Control Board South Coast Air Quality Management District Storage Terminals, and Pipelines Project 1

20

21 Evaluation of Environmental s: 1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except No answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A No answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A No answer should be explained if it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including offsite as well as onsite, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. Potentially is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more Potentially entries when the determination is made, an Environmental Report (EIR) is required. 4. Negative Declaration: Less than with Mitigation Incorporated applies when the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from a Potentially to a. The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less-than-significant level. (Mitigation measures from Section XVII, Earlier Analyses, may be cross-referenced.) 5. Earlier analyses may be used if, pursuant to tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration [Section 15063(c)(3)(D)]. In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: (a) (b) (c) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where earlier analyses are available for review. s Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. Mitigation Measures. For effects that are Less than with Mitigation Incorporated, describe the mitigation measures that were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, when appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8. This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to the environmental effects of a project in whatever format is selected. 9. The explanation of each issue should identify: (a) (b) The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level Storage Terminals, and Pipelines Project 3

22 Potentially with Mitigation Incorporated No I. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings along a scenic highway? c. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the area? Discussion: a. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Potentially. The Port of Los Angeles is located along the southern edge of the City of Los Angeles, where the topography varies from relatively flat areas with low hills near sea level to steeper topography to the west. Four scenic vistas/public view sites that are recognized and designated by the City of Los Angeles are located in the area of the Port: Lookout Point, the Korean Bell Monument, the Osgood-Farley Battery site, and White Point Reservation. All of these view sites are located in San Pedro, with the Lookout Point and the Korean Bell Monument sites having a view of Project sites. The proposed marine terminal portion of the project is located at the southernmost boundary of the Port of Los Angeles, on Pier 400. This terminal and the presence of large tanker vessels at the terminal during project operations could impact the view from Lookout Point and the Korean Bell Monument sites. The new storage tank sites would be located on Terminal Island to the north of Pier 400. The potential storage sites are near other petroleum liquid bulk marine terminals, container terminals, tank farms and/or industrial facilities. Views of the storage sites from off-site public and private vantages would generally be blocked by these adjacent facilities. The pipelines would be underground and, once completed, would not affect any scenic views. The project does not propose demolition; however, construction of the new storage facilities and pipelines could be visible from the Lookout Point, the Korean Bell Monument, and other locations. This issue of scenic vista impact will be addressed within the EIS/EIR. Storage Terminals, and Pipelines Project 4

23 b. Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?. The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) is responsible for the official nomination and designation of eligible scenic highways. The proposed project would not have the potential to significantly damage scenic resources within view of a state highway because project sites would not be located in or directly adjacent to a state scenic highway. The closest officially designated scenic highway is a portion of Interstate 210, approximately 22 miles north of the Port site, and north of the City of Los Angeles. The closest highway identified as eligible for listing as scenic (SR 19) is approximately 7 miles northeast of the Port. The project sites would not affect the quality of the scenic vista at these large distances. Additionally, the City of Los Angeles has designated Scenic Highways in the project area, including a corridor west of the Port that includes John S. Gibson Boulevard, Harbor Boulevard (between Harry Bridges Boulevard and Crescent Avenue), Pacific Avenue (from Crescent Avenue to Paseo del Mar), Front Street, Paseo del Mar, and 25th Street. The project sites would be visible from portions of these routes. However, scenic vista impact would be less than significant because project sites would be too distant and mostly blocked by intervening development. Furthermore, the project sites would be within areas that are primarily industrial/commercial. The City of Long Beach has designated industrial-educational scenic routes, including Ocean Boulevard within the Port of Long Beach, and the Schuyler Heim Bridge and State Routes 47 and 103 (Terminal Island Freeway) east and north of the project site. The project sites would be visible from only short stretches along these routes, and the sites would fit into the industrial-educational character of the routes. Scenic impact would therefore be less than significant. This issue will not be addressed in the EIS/EIR. c. Would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings?. Construction of the proposed project would consist of three primary activities, i.e., marine terminal construction on Pier 400; storage terminal (tank farm) construction on Terminal Island; and underground pipeline construction between Pier 400, Terminal Island, Mormon Island, and the Ultramar/Valero Refinery. Although the proposed project development and activities would be visible from some scenic view corridors, the new uses would be consistent with the general industrial/commercial nature of the Port and would not significantly impact the existing visual character or quality of the sites and surroundings. However, the proposed 24-inch pipeline would pass near the Banning s Landing Community Center, and the storage tank areas would be within view of Knoll Hill and the Vincent Thomas Bridge. This issue will be discussed in the EIS/EIR. Storage Terminals, and Pipelines Project 5

24 d. Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Potentially. Ambient nighttime lighting levels may be increased as a result of the need for illumination of marine terminal equipment, the proposed new transfer and storage facilities, and operations associated with additional vessel calls. This issue will be evaluated in the EIS/EIR. Potentially with Mitigation Incorporated No II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts on agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997), prepared by the California Department of Conservation. Would the project: a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland) as shown on maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use? b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or conflict with a Williamson Act contract? c. Involve other changes in the existing environment that, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to nonagricultural use? Discussion: a. Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use? No. The California Department of Conservation s Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program identifies categories of agricultural resources that are significant and therefore require special consideration. According to the Department of Conservation s Important Farmland Map, the project site is not in an area designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (California Department of Conservation 1999). No farmland or agricultural resources or operations exist on the project Storage Terminals, and Pipelines Project 6

25 sites or would be converted by project implementation. This issue will not be addressed in the EIS/EIR. b. Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? No. No agricultural resources or operations exist within the project limits or adjacent areas. The project sites are not zoned for agricultural use but for heavy industrial use ([Q] M3) (City of Los Angeles, 2001); and no Williamson Act contracts apply to the project sites. Therefore, this issue will not be addressed in the EIS/EIR. c. Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment that, due to their location or nature, could individually or cumulatively result in loss of Farmland to nonagricultural use? No. No agricultural resources or operations exist within the project limits or adjacent areas. The project sites are not zoned for agricultural use but for heavy industrial use ([Q] M3) (City of Los Angeles, 2001); and no Williamson Act contracts apply to the project sites. Therefore, this issue will not be addressed in the EIS/EIR. III. AIR QUALITY. When available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is a nonattainment area for an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Potentially with Mitigation Incorporated No Storage Terminals, and Pipelines Project 7

26 Discussion: a. Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plans? Potentially. Project operations would result in increases in air emissions compared with current levels of activity from the project sites. Over time the throughput of crude oil or related petroleum products moved through the Marine Terminal, Storage Terminals, and Pipelines would increase. Emissions from transport vessels, pumps, equipment; and storage tanks would increase and could interfere with the South Coast Air Quality Management District s 2003 Final Air Quality Management Plan. This impact will be assessed in the EIS/EIR. b. Would the project violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Potentially. Project construction would result in fugitive dust and combustion emissions. Project operations would result in increased emissions of criteria air pollutants compared with current levels of activity. The impacts associated with these emissions will be assessed in the EIS/EIR. c. Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Potentially. Project construction would result in fugitive dust and combustion emissions. Project operations would result in increased emissions of criteria air pollutants compared with current levels of activity. Over time the throughput of crude oil and related petroleum products moved through the new Marine Terminal, Storage Terminals, and Pipelines would increase. The impacts resulting from the cumulative impact of these emissions with other project emissions will be assessed in the EIS/EIR. d. Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Potentially. Construction activities may expose nearby occupants to air pollution conditions in the form of dust and exhaust emissions. Compliance with SCAQMD rules and regulations, including implementation of recommended control measures, would be required during the construction phases of the proposed project. Operational activities may expose nearby sensitive receptors to increased levels of air pollution. In addition to evaluating the level of sensitive receptor exposure to the criteria pollutants identified in the Federal Clean Air Act, the California Clean Air Act, and the National and California Ambient Air Quality Standards, an evaluation of the exposure and impacts of toxic diesel vessel emissions will be added as a subject of special concern. These impacts will be discussed in the EIS/EIR. Storage Terminals, and Pipelines Project 8

27 e. Would the project create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Potentially. Short-term objectionable odors associated with the use of diesel powered heavy equipment and paving and asphalting activities could occur in areas near the proposed project construction sites. Odors produced from the operation of the proposed facilities would be activity-dependent and are likely to be similar to the odors produced from existing crude oil terminal loading, transfer, and storage operations. The impacts associated with these odors will be evaluated in the EIS/EIR. Potentially with Mitigation Incorporated No IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or specialstatus species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marshes, vernal pools, coastal wetlands, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Storage Terminals, and Pipelines Project 9

28 Potentially with Mitigation Incorporated No f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat conservation plan; natural community conservation plan; or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Discussion: a. Would the project have a substantial adverse impact, either directly or through habitat modifications on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Potentially. The California brown pelican and the California least tern, both of which are on federal and state endangered species lists, are found in the harbor area, as are peregrine falcons which are identified on the state endangered species list. The least tern nesting site is located immediately to the east of the project marine terminal site. In addition, Elegant and Caspian terns, species protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, have nested in the project area in the last few years. Construction activities, including placement of the 42-inch pipeline, during the nesting season (April through August) may have the potential to adversely affect this species. Lighting at the project site during operations also has the potential for long-term impacts on the least tern through increasing light in the area and by providing perches for predatory birds. Marine vessel discharge of ballast water has the potential to transport invasive species to harbor waters. However, the State of California implemented a Ballast Water Management Plan in January 2000 to minimize the risk from invasive species. The plan mandates ballast water exchange in mid-ocean waters (200 nautical miles from land) or retention of all ballast water while berthed at the Port, to minimize potential impacts. These issues will be addressed in the EIS/EIR. b. Would the project have a substantial adverse impact on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?. Construction activities that would occur at some of the alternative storage tank site locations, particularly the Seaside Avenue/Terminal Way site, could affect plants such as trees that provide terrestrial wildlife habitat. No dredging activities are assumed to be part of the proposed project, but some pile driving is assumed to be necessary for installation of the breasting dolphins at the berthing site. These activities Storage Terminals, and Pipelines Project 10

29 have the potential to cause short-term impacts to marine organisms, particularly fish, in the vicinity of the pile driving. No riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities in the project areas would be affected. However, petroleum product throughput during project operations could have the potential for spills, accidents, or leaks of hazardous materials that could affect biological residents of harbor waters. These issues will be evaluated in the EIS/EIR. c. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including but not limited to marshes, vernal pools, coastal wetlands, etc.), through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? No. No known federally protected wetlands exist in or near the project marine terminal site, storage terminal sites, or pipeline routes. Therefore, this issue will not be addressed in the EIS/EIR. d. Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites? Less than. The proposed project is not expected to interfere with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites, except as discussed above for sensitive species. However, petroleum product throughput during project operations would result in vessel berthing at the marine terminal, and could increase the potential for spills, accidents, or leaks of hazardous materials that could affect biological residents and nursery areas of the harbor. Marine vessel discharge of ballast water has the potential to transport invasive species to harbor waters. However, the State of California implemented a Ballast Water Management Plan in January 2000 to minimize the risk from invasive species. The plan mandates ballast water exchange in mid-ocean waters (200 nautical miles from land) or retention of all ballast water while berthed at the Port, to minimize potential impacts. These issues will be addressed in the EIS/EIR. e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Potentially. Most of the proposed project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance at the marine terminal or new pipeline corridors. However, the Seaside Avenue/Terminal Way storage tank site appears to have trees present that would need to be removed for storage tank and containment area construction. Loss of those trees may be in conflict with local policies or ordinances. Therefore, this issue will be addressed in the EIS/EIR. Storage Terminals, and Pipelines Project 11

30 f. Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat conservation plan; natural communities conservation plan; or any other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?. The project sites are not located in an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) area or Natural Communities Conservation Plan (NCCP) area. The NCCP program, initiated in 1991 under the State's Natural Community Conservation Planning Act, is administered by the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG 2003). A cooperative planning effort between the resource agencies and development community, the NCCP program provides for the conservation of biological diversity by implementing regional protections for plants, wildlife, and habitats, while allowing compatible development. The only approved NCCP near the Port is the Palos Verdes Peninsula Sub- Regional Plan, which was designed to protect coastal sage scrub and does not include Port lands. HCPs are administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and are intended to identify how project impacts on endangered species will be mitigated (USFWS 2003). HCPs are required for Incidental Take Permits issued for otherwise lawful activities that may harm listed species or their habitats. To obtain a permit, an applicant must submit an HCP outlining proposed actions to minimize and mitigate the impact of the permitted take on the listed species. There are no HCPs in place for the Port. The County of Los Angeles has also established 61 Ecological Areas (SEAs) (County of Los Angeles 1992). Los Angeles County developed the concept of SEAs in the 1970s simultaneously with development of the original County General Plan. SEAs were originally defined to correspond with the Land Use and Open Space Elements of the County General Plan. The nesting site for the least tern within the Port is identified as a SEA. The Port has an agreement with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the California Department of Fish and Game regarding protection of the least tern nesting site, and project site development is not in conflict with the this agreement. However, this issue will be addressed in the EIS/EIR. Potentially with Mitigation Incorporated No V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section ? Storage Terminals, and Pipelines Project 12